(8th Cir.)(holding the failure to give Miranda warnings does not give rise to a § 1983 violation), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1091, 104 L. Ed. 2d 988, 109 S. Ct. 2431 (1989); Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir. 1976)(holding that violations of Miranda procedure do not subject a police officer to liability under the Civil Rights Act).
Likewise, plaintiff's Sixth Amendment claim is without merit. Plaintiff complains that: (1) he "was never given any opportunity to contact his counsel . . ."; and (2) "his lawyer for the preliminary arraignment that evening . . . was indirectly provided through Jody Cronin who spoke with plaintiff's law partner." Pl.'s Mot. for Sum. J. at 16. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only after the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings, by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 431, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 106 S. Ct. 1135 (1986); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689, 32 L. Ed. 2d 411, 92 S. Ct. 1877 (1972); Giuffre, 31 F.3d at 1257. Regardless of how his legal representation was procured, the fact is that plaintiff was represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing before the district justice.
Therefore, because plaintiff was represented by counsel at the earliest point after the initiation of the adversary proceeding, there is no basis for his Sixth Amendment claim.
B. State Law Claims
Having dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 claims, the Court will exercise its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and will decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. See Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995).
For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants on plaintiff's § 1983 claims, and plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
AND NOW, this 19TH day of February, 1998, upon consideration of the motion of defendants for summary judgment and for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (doc. no. 12), and plaintiff's response thereto (doc. no. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's § 1983 claims is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum of this date;
2. The clerk shall enter JUDGMENT in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on Count I;
3. Plaintiffs' state law claims stated in Counts II and III are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ;
4. Defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions is DENIED ; and
5. All of the claims having been adjudicated, the clerk shall mark the case CLOSED.1a
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.